The Worth and Dignity of All People. No Exceptions.

Our Unitarian Universalist principles are comprised of seven statements about commonly-held values among the congregations of our faith. They are not a creed, nor are they theological statements, but instead they point us toward what we are striving to become: whole and holy people engaged in building beloved community with one another and with our planet. In some ways, our first principle, the inherent worth and dignity of all people, is the most widely known, most commonly invoked, and perhaps most easily mis-used principle among the seven. Of all of the principles, it is also the one that has the most far-reaching theological implications.

We affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of all people. In other words, every single human being on this planet, alive or dead, possesses some innate, essential virtue as part of their very humanity. When people would stop me to comment on my babies, who were generally fairly quiet and happy, their inevitable observation was, “Your baby is so good!” To which I would smile, and kindly reply, “All babies are good.”

Like Lada Gaga says, baby, you were born this way. Each and every one of you was born that way. You carry within you something ineffable, something that Christianity names being made in the image of God, and which Buddhism names the potential Buddha-nature of all people and which is expressed in the Hindu greeting, Namaste–that which is divine in me honors what is divine in you. It seems simple enough. If each of us have that spark, that essence, then how could we fail to recognize it in one another?

We fail all the time.

We fail in large ways…we torture, slaughter, oppress, dehumanize and objectify each other. And while most of us might consider ourselves more compassionate than that, we all fail in small ways, too. We write off someone who believes the “wrong” things. We treat someone with opposing political viewpoints as hard-hearted and greedy, or as a naive and foolish bleeding heart. We judge people we do not know. We ridicule our children or spouses. We run into the streets, cheering, when a human being halfway across the world is assassinated.

In these failings we deny, ignore, try to steal away others’ worth and dignity. In doing so, we lose, deny, or forfeit some of our own. If we can’t see the humanity of others, how can we see our own? If we can’t see our own, how can we covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of others? We cannot love our neighbors as ourselves unless we can love ourselves.

And yet, at the most fundamental level, our failures do not make us unworthy. They do not render us undignified. We were all born this way, both flawed and worthy of all of the love that the Universe has to offer, which is, perhaps, also flawed. One of the heresies of Michael Servetus, who was burned at the stake with his anti-trinitarian writings in 1553 was that he believed that because God contains all that there is, there must be evil in God. That which sustains us is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent because it is perfect, but because it includes everything. All knowing is contained there. All power is contained there. All presence is contained there…and is also transcended by the whole.

Human beings are capable of just about any good and any evil. At some level, we are neither inherently good nor inherently evil, but have great capacity for both. All babies are good, they were seemingly born that way, but they will develop the capacity for evil. Some of them, some of us, will act out of that capacity. Some will not. A few will commit great atrocities, most will not. Some of us will suffer greatly. Some of us will see that suffering and simply pass by. In the end, we are simply looking into a mirror; we are all made of the same stuff. No matter how great our flaws, there is always also contained within every human the very essence of our humanity-our inherent worth and dignity-which gives us our capacity to give and receive love. It is that capacity that finally reconciles all people, in the end, to wholeness and to the source of all Love.

16 Responses

Pelagius has been found heretical by more church councils than even Arius. There is very little that Rome and the Reformation can agree upon, but the doctrine of original sin is in that set. Without spending a large amount of time on the topic this morning, explain Romans 1-3, particularly Romans 3:1-20 in light of your view of the goodness or even neutrality of man. Paul certainly disagrees with your doctrine. Grace is not much needed if man can save himself. Why did we need a crucifixion or resurrection if man is capable of any good? Are you considering a distinction between civic righteousness and righteousness before God? Many people can perform deeds of civic righteousness, but are these same actions pure and worthy of satifying a Holy God? Jesus tells us that our pietistic efforts are futile. I’m looking forward to your response.

I certainly don’t believe that salvation, or restoration to wholeness, is possible without grace. Nor do I believe in a doctrine of original sin. The passages you referenced, largely intended to argue away the differences between the Jewish and Gentile communities, certainly reference human sin–and we all “miss the mark” in our lives, both individually and perhaps more importantly, collectively. But that does not mean, therefore, that people are not born with some inherent virtue. We sin, we err, we make mistakes–sometimes grave ones. But it does not make us depraved. It’s part of being human.

as a Christian, I respectfully think you have missed the point of this post. Every human is made in the image and likeness of God. Every person is worthy of the dignity and respect of their fellow man. Grace is what we believe reconciles us with God through Jesus. Regardless of the state of someone’s soul and their eternal destiny, we are called to love our fellow man.

Rev. Cooper-Davis, I whole heartedly agree with your post! I especially liked your comment that all babies are good, rregardless of their cuteness factor. I believe that God has breathed His life and Spirit into each human and filled them with His goodness and love. Thanks for affirming the dignity of everyone, especially those who may oppose us.

That which sustains us is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent because it is perfect, but because it includes everything.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does that include the American Family Association?

No matter how great our flaws, there is always also contained within every human the very essence of our humanity-our inherent worth and dignity-which gives us our capacity to give and receive love. It is that capacity that finally reconciles all people, in the end, to wholeness and to the source of all Love.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does that include the American Family Association?

Our failures don’t define us, because sin is not personal. It is a behavior and a lifestyle, not a person. Of course all people are made in the likeness of Christ, the problem is that we all don’t act like Him.

While the question is rhetorical, I am asking it to point out that Unitarian Universalism is not Christian. When readers go onto blogs such as this, the assumption is that faith is equal to Christianity. This is not the case. The denial of original sin is not Christian. The issue I raised was not the issue that all humans are image bearers of God and therefore fall in the set of people to whom we should attempt to honor and dignify. That truth falls into the set of items placed under general revelation.

The Romans passages are not merely arguing the differences between Jewish and Gentile branches of Christianity. Those arguments are later in the Epistle in chapters 9-11. The issue is the basic goodness of man. Despite being image bearers, and worthy of general respect, man is not inherently good. The example of the baby is germane. The baby, while being an image bearer of God, is still fallen and in the condition of sin.

Disagreement with me is fine. That is not the point. What is the point is that the set of Christianity from the Apostles through the Reformation all agree on the doctrine of original sin, regardless of their view of the atonement and justification. These Pelagian arguments concerning the general goodness of man are not Christian. That is the distinction that I am making.

In addition, the use of Servetus as an argument for the presence of both good and evil in man by virtue of the presence of both good and evil in God is an affront to the Holiness of God. Again, this is contrary to both Christian as well as Jewish doctrines of God. Servetus was rightly accused of heresy on this account.

I continue this discussion primarily for the benefit of Christians who mistakenly assume that the Unitarian view is similar to the Christian view. It is not on basic and fundamental levels. We can all be respectful to each other regardless of the origin of our moral standards. What is at state in this discussion is the understanding of exactly what position you are defending. Christians to very large degree do not understand what it is that they believe or why they should believe it. These discussions that I have recently stumbled upon bear out this fact in spades.

While you are correct that Unitarian Universalism is not explicitly Christian (Post-Christian might be more accurate–our faith evolved out of an historically Protestant context, but we would not be recognized by other Christian groups as Christian), to assert that there is only one view on human nature that is accurately Christian is misleading. I know many Christians who do not espouse the doctrine of original sin–all people who strive to follow the life and teachings of Jesus. There are a variety of Christian doctrines…and they don’t all overlap, just as there are a variety of ways of following the Muslim faith or the Hindu faith or the Jewish faith. All religions have variations within them, as the faith has found different expressions in different cultures, places and times. To suggest that Christianity is a monolith–can only be expressed in one particular way–erroneous.

Erroneous? No. Biblical. Yes. As you have basically identified yourself as outside of the set of what I would identify as Christian, your view of what is Christian may not resemble my own. The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura was advanced as an attempt to reign in the problem of the magistrate and Papal interpretation. While there is clearly a difference of opinion on many non-salvation issues, the core of beliefs that define Christianity are remarkable consistent. It is usually those outside of Christianity who seek to amplify distinction, and almost always without regard to the level or order of the issue.

Christianity in American is on life support. The default setting of people who claim the label of Christianity is Pelagian. There is an appalling lack of Biblical knowledge and understanding in this country among professing Christians. Most do not know that those Romans 3 passages are even in the Bible. So when you assert that Christianity can only be “expressed” in one way as erroneous, my response is that “expression” of Christianity in terms of culture is an erroneous practice. I would have grave concerns about those falling away from that monolith of Christian and Biblical doctrine.

Christianity is unique among religions in that it is based upon the an historical event. This event occurred in the public arena among hostile witnesses. The historical record contains the Biblical record of this event, secular corroboration of many of the satellite events, and a complete absence of the contradiction of the key event in the hostile secular documents. In short, Christianity is based upon historical facts. The interpretation of those facts is the purpose of the New Testament. These facts are independent of the culture in which they are presented.

In 1945, the US used the first atomic bomb on a civilian population. This is a historical fact. Regardless of where this fact is told, the starting point must be this fact. So it is with the Gospel. The Gospel is news, good news. The action of the Holy Spirit is to bring the gift of faith to those elect who shall believe. This is Christianity. Any different “expression” of these facts are contrary to the Biblical documents.

So, then, am I the one who is misleading? No, I would not agree. My mission remains the modern reformation of the Church. We have been horribly mislead by men such as Charles Finney and John Wesley. The whole Pentecostal movement misleads millions of souls. The heresies of Pelagius, Arius and the Gnostics have so infiltrated and divided the Church to the point that you, as an outsider, can make the statement that I am misleading and be believed.

Thank you for the dialogue. I hope your readers found it edifying. There is an orthodox position of Christianity that unifies and unites. Read the text and find good teachers. It took me 50 years to find good teachers. You will know them when you hear them. The Bible is internally consistent. When you have a systematic theology that leaves the fewest problem passages, then you know that you are close to the truth.

The Ogre wrote, “In addition, the use of Servetus as an argument for the presence of both good and evil in man by virtue of the presence of both good and evil in God is an affront to the Holiness of God. Again, this is contrary to both Christian as well as Jewish doctrines of God. Servetus was rightly accused of heresy on this account.”

The argument for the presence of both good and evil in God originates long before Servetus — it can be found quite explicitly in the Hebrew Scriptures. Consider these words from Isiah 45: 5-7:

I am the Eternal, and there is none else, there is no god beside me: I girded you, though you have not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Eternal, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Eternal do all these things.

In my experience studying scripture with Jews, this kind of statement is crucial to understanding The Bible and what it says about humanity’s relationship with God. If we are formed in God’s own image, then we must accept that we have both the capacity for good and evil within us — as God does, as well. Let us not ignore this issue or simply try to explain it away — let us wrestle with it, and better understand ourselves and our capacity to choose good.